Hermeneutical Factors

Dispensationalists have certain hermeneutic foundations that establish their unique viewpoint.

• Hard distinction between Israel and the Church
• Old Testament priority over the New Testament
• Essentially woodenly literal approach to reading Scripture

Personally, I do not see the hard distinction between Israel and the Church. I do not see Israel as strictly ethnic, although, I see it as national (Old Covenant); and the continuity is Israel, made of both gentile and ethnic Israelites together, is brought into a New Man in Christ (Ephesians 2:11-22). Not to mention the father of the Israelites, Abraham, was gentile (Genesis 15).

Secondly, I see the New Testament taking priority over the Old Testament because of the Person and Work of Jesus. Dispensationalists claim their position is the position that places God’s glory most on display. I disagree because a Christocentric interpretation places God’s glory on display most because God’s glory is seen most clearly in the face of Jesus– the Mediator between God and man and the Word of God made flesh to whom the written Word of God points.

Thirdly, the biblical Authors did not use language in a woodenly literal fashion. Because of this, Dispensationalists must break their own rule of interpretation in order to keep their hermeneutic approach in tact.

These reasons, at least to me, demonstrate their hermeneutical foundations flow from a preconceived notion rather than Scripture itself.

To deny how Scripture interprets Itself on any point is to reject Scriptural objective literalism, which in turn, is a rejection of the authority of Scripture Itself.

When Scripture itself interprets Scripture “literally” then we go with the literal interpretation; but when Scripture interprets Scripture non-literally, we go with the non-literal interpretation. Interpreting Scripture literally because Scripture interprets Scripture literally 75 or 80% of the time is not a good rule of thumb. It is taking hermeneutical cues from a preconceived philosophical construct rather than Scripture.

Interpret Scripture literally when Scripture Itself interprets Scripture literally and non-literally when Scripture interprets Scripture non-literally.

What about Acts 15:13-19?

My friend Nathan White writes concerning this passage:

The rapture, millennium, etc. can be discussed all day without making progress, but I think this passage really gets to the heart of the disagreement here. I say this because the passage speaks of the rebuilding of Israel, and the manner in which James interprets it is pertinent to the ‘literal or figurative’ discussion as well.

So, here it’s clear that James is using the OT prophecy to describe what was presently taking place and why they should not prohibit Gentiles from turning to God. He both interprets the prophecy figuratively (according to some, though I’m sure we define that term differently), and he claims that the restoration of Israel had already taken place. Both of these claims, IMO, strike at the core of Dispensational error.

From a dispensational standpoint, they are relegated to saying that James is quoting a still-future prophecy that will be fulfilled during the millennium, and that he quotes the prophecy to argue that ‘since Gentiles will be accepted then, we should accept them now too’.

But it seems to me that taking a literal fulfillment of this prophecy, and/or pushing it’s fulfillment to the future, completely undermines James’ point. The whole reason he quotes the passage is to say ‘this is happening right now!’, and it loses its thrust and application when delegated to the future.

So – we are to let scripture be our guide in determining when and how prophecy is fulfilled, we are to recognize that this is often not ‘literal’ as we like to define things, and that if we see what scripture has already said on the issue, Gentiles are part of the same body, same tree, and indeed make up with the Jews the true Israel of God.